The Economics of Discrimination

Why the Iowa Supreme Court was right to allow a dentist to fire his attractive assistant

The Iowa Supreme Court last month ruled that it was legal for a dentist to fire an attractive female dental assistant because she posed a threat to his marriage. The case raises some interesting questions about property rights in a free society. Although certain employers are no doubt scoundrels as human beings, the government shouldn’t regulate their hiring or firing decisions—the market has built-in mechanisms to appropriately reward or punish them.

Reading the story of the dentist, it seems he won’t be up for any Man of the Year awards. According to the Huffington Post:

[The assistant], 32, worked for [the dentist] for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Assuming the story accurately summarizes what happened, it’s safe to conclude that the dentist is a jerk and that his assistant was the victim of unfairness. Yet this alone doesn’t mean she should have won her lawsuit seeking to be reinstated at her old job. It’s not (and should not be) illegal to treat people unfairly per se. Unless stated explicitly in the original contract, workers don’t have a right to their jobs. It is the employer’s money, to be spent as the employer deems fit.

To see the principle involved, switch the context away from employers to consumers. If someone has been going daily to a particular Japanese restaurant for ten years straight, he always retains the right to suddenly stop going altogether, with no notice given. This is true even if the owner of the restaurant had come to depend on that business and made business decisions assuming the customer would continue spending money as he had done for the previous decade.

Now suppose that in this scenario, the restaurant owner filed a lawsuit, demanding that the customer prove his motivation had to do with finding a better restaurant—rather than prejudice against Japanese people. Such a case would be laughed out of court. The principle would be straightforward: it was the customer’s money to spend as he pleased. No matter the precedent set by his earlier behavior, and no matter the inconvenience or even genuine financial hardship his sudden change in spending would impose on the restaurant owner, the customer doesn’t have to explain his motivations to anybody. By the same logic, then, one could defend an employer’s right to spend his money as he pleases. If he changes his mind after ten years and fires an employee, that is his prerogative; he doesn’t need to explain himself to a judge.

Turning from rights to practical considerations, economists have long argued that a free-market economy contains automatic mechanisms to reward or punish employers based on the fairness of their decisions, when “fairness” is defined in a certain way. When casting the role for Abraham Lincoln in the new Steven Spielberg film, it was obvious that they were looking to hire a white male—no one else needed to apply. Yet this is hardly what people mean by “gender or racial discrimination in the workplace.” Another obvious example is the racial composition of professional sports, where black men are represented far more than their proportion in the population. Here too, most people wouldn’t consider this racial discrimination.

Now consider an example where the consensus would fall, but only slightly. It is undeniable that if one looked at the staff at a busy downtown restaurant, the greeters at the front door and the wait staff would be more physically attractive than the people working in the dish room. It would be clear that this wasn’t a statistical fluke: whoever made the hiring decisions was clearly putting young, pretty girls where the customers would see them. Although some people would consider this an example of “bad” discrimination—perhaps the kind to be outlawed by the government—most Americans wouldn’t object to this type of practice. This isn’t what they would have in mind when saying the government ought to punish employers for discrimination in the workplace.

On the other hand, if there were an employer looking to fill an accounting position, and of two candidates—one black, the other white—the employer hired the white candidate because he was white, then most Americans would say this is the type of situation they want penalized.

Putting our finger on the precise issue, we can say that the vague sense of injustice is ultimately driven by employment decisions based on criteria that don’t affect the bottom line of the business. In other words, if the employer makes a decision based on personal characteristics of the employee (sex, race, religion, age, etc.) that are unprofitable, then this is exactly the type of thing that the government should be punishing.

When it comes to the “pay gap” between men and women, the differences begin to melt away once other factors (such as marital status, educational attainment, years in the industry, and inherent danger of the job) are taken into account. One huge difference between, say, a 23-year-old married woman and a 23-year-old single man who are otherwise identical is that the former is more likely to leave her job (either permanently or just for a year) because of a child. Yes, it’s possible that the 23-year-old single man will do the same thing, but it’s not as likely. So when deciding on which candidate to hire and on whom to spend perhaps thousands of dollars training, the firm rationally is more likely to hire the man, or, if the female candidate is to remain competitive, she will have to work for a lower salary.

These types of considerations strike many people as crass and unconscionable, but they are undeniable facts of business, just as surely as the fact that restaurant patrons would rather be greeted by a pretty young girl than a 55-year-old ugly man. If people wish to retain their right to spend their money as they see fit in their roles as consumers, then they should grant business owners the same freedom. The forces of market competition will give the producers the right incentives to make truly business-oriented decisions. These incentives won’t ensure perfection, to be sure, but they are much better calibrated and swift than relying on government courts.

MORE IN ECONOMY

Hide 34 comments

34 Responses to The Economics of Discrimination

Huffington Post deciding who should get a man of the year award is like cats deciding which goldfish to grap out of a fishbowl first.

I think there is more than meets the eye — the Lambougini reference sounds a sthough it tookplace in an interpersonal exchange in which two people shared personal information about their lives. Self disclosures about one’s sexual behavior would seem out of place at work between employer and employee, unless they had developed some level of trust —-

and in those places of friendship or mutual caring in which one feels sfe to engage in such communication — is danger. So while his communication seems bold, in the context of their relationship dynamic, it might very well have been fairly innocent banter – even flirting. In the end of his comment was not about sex — but about her attractiveness. About which she might very well have been flattered. I am troubled that Huffington Post did not relate any material as to her role in these exchanges.

So somewhere over this ten year period, the dentist felt that things had crossed a line in which he would engage in an extra-marital exchange.

Now either the gentleman is presumptious about what was available to him or there was some suggestion that it would be mutual. Even an old celibate like me is not dead. So this particular Lambourgini was open for a test run. My comments are no way to slight this young women. But to acknowledge that these are the conditions in which extra-marital relations occur. among people, who get along, have affinity, and engage in personal self disclosure.

Now I am certainly guessing about a lot of unknowns, not being privy to their relationship dynamic. Did he out and out terminate her or did he essentially transfer her to another dentist via a reccommended hire. But clearly, he felt his marriage was threatened – taking him at his word – which is a sign that whatever was happening at the office was athreat to his practice. It’s not her skin color, it’s not her looks, it’s the dynamic between the two. That dynamic may have been resolved via the dentist getting a grip, implementing a dress code, but he chose another avenue as is his right as an owner.

It’s a funny story, albeit sad that anyone lose a job after investing a day muchless ten years. Funny because, while I may think have all manner of wonders about a Nicole Kidman, Ann Coulter, Halle Barry – assuming that I could hop in, even the passengers seat of any of these classy vehicles sounds like cautionary tale with all manner of woes for me. I guess maybe that was the dentists point.

Unfortunately, if you take your argument to its logical extent, there is no reason for businesses to not discriminate against black or Jewish customers.

It’s very easy for white males to be gung-ho Free Marketers and libertarians. Most of them have never been on the other side of the equation.

And in your argument above, you’ve essentially shown why a libertarian society would be doomed to non-existence within a very short period of time. If women are discriminated against because of the possibility of becoming pregnant, there is a great incentive to a) get yourself sterilized or b) never get pregnant.

A society in which women don’t get pregnant because otherwise they won’t be able to have a job is going to very quickly disappear. You might want to rethink your concepts.

grumpy realist
Speaking of the real world, your hypothesis is the very opposite what happens in the real world, the more rights women have, the lower the fertility rate, whether this is wrong or right is another debate, but there the facts are indisputable the modern day working women have the lowest rates of pregnancy.

Logic dictates that the market does punish any type of discrimination. As a customer I don’t know or care if a black or white person packed the cereal box on the shelf. If one company hires a more efficient woman as opposed to the less efficient male preferred by the competition, the one company that affords itself discrimination will be less profitable and in an all out competition go out of business.
With respect to women becoming pregnant, that is the one ability where they certainly have a leg up on us males in ability. Considering that any society’s foremost task is the proper creation and rearing of the next generation, should we not encourage the part of our society that is best suited for that job to do it, rather than employing them in secondary tasks of providing for food and shelter? To look for discrimination here is completely misplaced.

“Unfortunately, if you take your argument to its logical extent, there is no reason for businesses to not discriminate against black or Jewish customers.”

Yes, there is. For one, customers are such because they have money to spend. Not only would such a discriminatory business lose the business of said customers, as well as all of the business of people who disagreed with this discrimination, they would likely face fierce competition from businesses with better practices. Unless of course you believe that the there are absolutely huge swaths of people in this country just waiting to be extreme racist, if only they had the chance.

The dynamics of the market also apply to the hiring of employees. There are a lot of great minority workers out there. Many are under appreciated, but Id say thats true of the majority of non managerial workers, and many a good manager as well. That means that over time the more enlightened employer will have a better chance of getting the best talent, minority workers included, and this will make discriminatory employers less competitive. Im not saying that these market dynamics provide a perfect or instant solution, but they do offer a real and sustainable road to desired, and even competing, forms of progress.

Try and looking at it from a different direction. Lets say a Black community made a commitment to insolate itself, creating and patroning real or defacto Black only businesses (FUBU?) as a way to improve the economics of thier community. This is, I admit, a poor exposition of Malcolm Xs’ preferred perscription to Black inequality, based on the idea (poorly paraphrased) that rather than ending seprateness to become equal, the Black community should first and foremost put itself on an equal footing to those better of, and that by this real equality seperation will naturally end. While Im not qualified to say with any certainty that such a plan would succeed, looking at all the real inequalities facing the black community, lots of legislation and one (half) Black president aside, they should be free to try such radical solutions should they be so inclined.

I think one of the issues openly thinking about these things brings up is the dynamic between old and new. In many ways, progressives are really conservative. The morally understandable, if not wholly justified, desire to reform existing businesses, institutions, and even cultures might be draining energy that would be needed for the creation of new models for interacting with each other. Is it better to make a rascist richer by reforming his business, or would we be better served by allowing the open minded space to create businesses with better values? Would not the better option be likely to win out in the end? Should we be mollified and contented gay Boy Scouts or should we use thier true and bigoted nature as a reason to make a new and better alternative?

I have no problem with people discussing the limitations of the free market, its an important conversation, and one I have found myself on both sides of at one time or another. But have you noticed how we always assume any appearant shortcomings must be systematic? This ties into the utopian mindset, that if only we had the (appearantly obvious) perfect system all would be well now and forever more. While systematic problems are certain to exist, this is likely to always be the case if your being honest and realistic. If this is true, rather than always trying to check, reform, or abolish the free market maybe those critical of the current state of the market should invest thier energies in using it. After all, in free market they are free to do so. For all the talk over how this system is flawed or how this system is better, any system with any real freedom or flexibility is just a starting point for our own wills, its what we do with that system that matters.

And in your argument above, you’ve essentially shown why a libertarian society would be doomed to non-existence within a very short period of time. If women are discriminated against because of the possibility of becoming pregnant, there is a great incentive to a) get yourself sterilized or b) never get pregnant.

Or there is an incentive to look for jobs that are more flexible, give up some of one’s career ambition, and find a mate who can help shoulder the financial burden of life.

Your comment only makes sense if we assume that a pregnant women would not be able to get any job whatsoever, that all women would prioritize careers over family, and that all women would be economically self-sufficient, with no desire for any level of financial reliance on a mate.

I must have missed the part where the market forces which encourage fairness by employers take effect. In reality, I don’t think there IS any such force at work. There aren’t market forces which encourage fairness by employers. In fact, as laid out here, market forces seem to encourage unfairness towards workers. Why hire the competant unattractive but pleasant person to wait tables when you can put her in back washing dishes (and make less money)? What could possibly be wrong with a society in which one’s ability to feed their family is tied to their attractiveness?

I also love the way this argument is tied to our “freedom” to be consumers. Because choosing between different deoderants and different human beings is like exactly the same thing. This sort of reasoning in which human beings are seen as nothing more than interchangable widgets with no legitimate needs or rights that anyone ought to be concerned with is exactly why conservatives are out of power, inequality is out of control and many people are failing no matter how hard they are willing to work. Stellar stuff here.

Its interesting that we attempt to redress social imbalances by attempting to allow everyone to fill, or at least to play, the roles that we point to as creating said imbalances in the first place.

On a related note, I find it misguided hat we associate womens rights with lower birth rates. While women may be able to choose more paths other than identifying primarily with being a mother or wife, arent we jumping the gun if we assume that women are taking such paths without cultural pressures? Might there be other factors at play than simplistic linear causality? Is our culture discouraging the single income home? Do we show more respect and admiration for the working woman than we do the loving mother? Have we conflated what some women are able to do with what we expect all women to do?

Its hard to know if anyone was being sexually harrassed when you have only one half of the story. We know a few things taken out of context, but we dont really know the context. We can try and recreate what happened, but how effective we can be at that once politics and bias become
involved? This is largely the problem with our entire approach to sexual harrassment.

The way our culture, and thus our institutions, attempt to address the wrong doing that can and does happen is well intentioned, and it might even be practical, in my understanding and experience this approach is not morally justifiable, at least not by the moral standard that it is better to see guilty men going free than it is to see innocent men being punished.

As many have noted, but using different reasoning than I will employ, your comments fail the Black test.

In any rational system where you have equal market players the principles you describe should generally bear out. Small, even isolated groups, can leverage their own internal production and consumption needs to create wealth within the group sufficient to attract the attention and envy of outside groups who will then feel compelled to bring them within the fold (to take advantage of the market). It did not take all that long for American WASPs to want to do business with prosperous Jews and Asians as those groups built up their market viability or became too important to ignore (without any special assistance from outside). However, where the minority group is not able to sustain a dynamic, or sufficiently dynamic, internal market among the members, the outside world, rather than the internal group, will be blamed for proportionate prosperity failures of that group (at least this has been the case in the US). And, the market incentives that would otherwise push for integration will not become sufficiently activated to bring about integration.

People of any race want to do business with successful people, not failures. This means there needs to be a critical mass of self-made successful people among any aspiring ethnic group. I contend that whites or Asians, were they to exist in numbers proportionately equivalent to blacks in the US, in non-white or Asian societies, would produce their own micro economies roughly as prosperous as the ones they create in those societies they dominate numerically. And, by doing so would be welcomed into the marketplace of the larger society. Blacks, by and large, did not create a sufficiently dynamic market in the South to change the perception that they were ultimately dependent upon whites for their prosperity. By modern conventions this is a racist perspective but it partially explains the so-called failure of libertarian theory as applied to the Jim Crow South.

. . . and the above posts are why the workplaces in so many companies have just become social clubs.

The article makes it very clear, she wasn’t not suing becvause she felt or was harrassed. She thought despite the nature of the relationship which had developed her looks posed no threat and she should be rehired. It’s not her looks, it was the threat of some unwanted behavior.

As for the color issue . . . the black boycots did have effect . . . the civil rights legislation pertained to primarily to public government spaces. Government entities could not engage in said discrimination – denial of services to other citizens. As for the restaurant whine — white restaurant owners did permit blacks to eat, but blacks did receive equalt treatment —- and that is quite another matter.

As stated earlier, I doubt we have the full story. But I have to admit — I love that Lambourgini line. I am not much into the forgiving business — without specifics, the accusations of harrassment, and what not are a bit of a reach.

Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward, All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. “Forward, the Light Brigade! “Charge for the guns!” Alfred Tennyson

I am of course being exaggerating the impact of sensitivity, diversity, realignment, listening, and other asundry interpersonal programs, conferences and training courses into blue and white collar workplaces . . .

in which every word was mulled, churned, spewed for a means test for discriminatory import. Where every phrase, move, tone of voice, seating arrangemnt, desk size, memo, logistics report, bare breasted lockered poster girl, made you subject and suspect with intent to inflict male dominance upon one’s female counterparts.

Now clearly no one should be at threat where they work and certainly some men have benefitted from of these changes and concerns, but by and large being harrassed, once upon a time referred to as kidded was the price every new comer experienced as a right of passage. The glass ceiling women contend exists for them has existed for every man who didn’t get through it.

The truth is and remains that most men treated women with the respect and honor they generally treated all women, with exceptions, but women have parlayed these exceptions into formidable standards for which there is little defense — ‘because, I feel it, it must be true.’

Hence, the shock and awe effect, of a woman, who after working for more than ten years on and off, would request rides home, ask for dinner or lunches (friendly like) requests that her former boss actually drop in on her at her new post —- until the confirmation hearings, she all but forgot what a cad he was all during that time . . .

That week women lost the battle, but it did launch the assault that has nearly won the war — even if the war was by and large non-existent.

Now some will be tempted to launch into all manner of accusations, just note, I have worked for women most of my life and in all but two or three cirmstances made them look very good, which is afterall, the result of doing one’s job well – your superiors, male or female, look good.

I think the gentleman in question regardless could have done something different, given what I don’t know, it is but speculation.

ohhh . . . that I had the money to even approach any of the Lambougini’s that catch my eye. Sigh upon sigh —-

Here’s my textbook response to the argument that free markets will punish this sort of injustice, so the legal system shouldn’t be used to address it: why then should the legal system be used to enforce contracts, since anyone who acquires a reputation for breaking contracts will be punished by the market?

If an argument can be used to support absolutely any position you happen to take at the moment, it probably isn’t a very good argument.

Thanks for replying. While Im sympathetic to where your coming from overall, this…

“The truth is and remains that most men treated women with the respect and honor they generally treated all women, with exceptions, but women have parlayed these exceptions into formidable standards for which there is little defense — ‘because, I feel it, it must be true.’”

…is pretty spot on. Ive had some pretty bad experiences with these kinds of things, and I have to say the kind of experience Ive had are not part of the dumbed down debate on harrassment. To simplify, 6 things stand out.

1. I have worked (and sooner rather than later left) at places where sexual harrassment and inappropriateness has been fairly obvious to me. The worst cases have never been held accountable, even while lesser/non offenders have. Perhaps this is a case of using a sacraficial lamb to pay for ones sins.

2. In the most negatively cliche patriarchal work place I have been in, where things really were bad, these negative attitudes not only went unpunished, they negatively impacted men with more enlightened attitudes towards women as well as the women themselves. I know that was an awful sentence, but I can live with it. Also, Im happy to say that this business lost all of thier best talent in short order, and ran itself into the ground. Its still hangs on, but with new ownership.

3. Third party busy bodies can level these accudations, and when this happens it can be as hard on the supposed victim as it can be on the accused offender, if not harder.

4. Baseless sexual harrassment accusations can be a problem for employeers as well as the wrongly accused, because actually handling the problem puts them in a potentially actionable position. Once this charge is leveled, a now preoccupied management often actd slowly, scared, and with tied hands. This can hurts an entire organization or workplace.

5. With the political and legal power carried by these accusations, sometimes rightly, this power can be abused for someones percieved personal or proffessional advantage. About to get fired? Working with someone you dislike? Competing with a better employee? Well ladoes, I have two magic words for you. Honestly, this is rare in my view, and I think this rarity is a testament to the moral charachter of women in this country.

6. Sexual harrassment, even systematic harrassment, is not something that only men do to women. Too often, we think equality only swings in one direction.

Add this all up and my conclusion is that there are larger gender and workplace politics at play, and that when you keep those motivations in mind we have far too low a burden of proof and far too high a burden of penitance when it comes to sexual harrassment. Except when we dont, and it is this lack of evenly applied standards, known and agreed upon, which is the real problem.

About the work as social club thing, I really have felt this is true at times in my own experience, and while this isnt always a negative thing it usually has been in the long time. Its probably one of those issues thats pretty multi-faceted, and we are left with over simplifying it or going with the complexity in a crazy sounding rant. But when isnt that the case, lol?

“Here’s my textbook response to the argument that free markets will punish this sort of injustice, so the legal system shouldn’t be used to address it: why then should the legal system be used to enforce contracts, since anyone who acquires a reputation for breaking contracts will be punished by the market?”

I actually agree with this. I truly believe all contracts should be voluntary. Just as people are at the mercy of the market when they make a bad investment in a stock or commodity, Im perfectly fine with a cell phone provider accepting risk when they freedly decide to engage with a customer in a service contract. Yes, I know this would lead to some pretty big changes, and yes, I think this would be good for us.

Yes, that is what Im saying. And since you clearly know more about the importance of contracts than I do, how about you enlighten me as to why thier legal privledge is sacrosanct, rather than merely implying that Im stupid for questioning such law.

A business that hires employees is NOT the same thing as a customer who may or may not go to a restaurant on whatever whim they feel like. An incorporated business has legal requirements when it hires employees.

Your next example of hiring choices for actors is off-topic and bizarre, as are most of the other things you ramble about. There is a lot of gray area when it comes to discrimination in hiring practices and yes, some jobs have requirements based on appearance.

But this is a matter of firing an extablished employee who has done nothing wrong. That’s a very different question.

Perhaps these laws vary state to state. The article seems to say that since the arbitrary firing was due to “emotions” instead of just flat out gender discrimination, then that’s perfectly fine. Maybe that’s how it is in Iowa. Legally, maybe that’s the case.

But it’s a very clear example of how society considers men’s sexual responses to be entirely the responsibility of women. He couldn’t possibly control himself and so she had to go. And this is considered a victory for family values because he chose to remove the temptation. It’s implied that this is the only choice available to weak-willed men who otherwise have no self-control.

And the article does seem to make it clear that the Lamborghini was not ready for a test drive–the two had become close but she viewed him as a father figure. This might have been sorted out but it also seems clear that his wife flipped out and that she was the main pressure for firing her.

The “threat to his marriage” might not be so much getting the temptress away but restoring peace with his jealous wife. Is that a reason to fire a good worker who had been there 10 years? Is that legally viable? Well, it might be in Iowa. You can argue that the court made the correct interpretation of the law. But to say that it should be right is a little extreme.

And to say that the free market will sort it out makes very little sense. There could possibly be a boycott of this dentist but I don’t see that as very practical. His workers could resign out of protest and go somewhere else but honestly, jobs are not so easy to get.

Just what is the reason based on the article he should have been sued for?

It was not soley her looks, not the information content, not their relationship alone, but the dynamic that their relationship might have caused.

With the case in hand, it is very difficult to come to any conclusions.

. . .but if it is between my business, my wife, and an employee . . . my employee would have to go.

I know a circumstance in which a female co-worker demanded a fellow instructor erase a whiteboard. Despite saying she do so, she insisted that he do it. When he indicated that he was with students, she stomped her feet, leaned in and pointed her finger in his face insisting he erase the whiteboard. His response,”I don’t know who you are dealing with.” Constituted a threat in her mind.

The breadth and scope of women feeling threatened based on how they feel, has gone quite far enough. But given that condition why are the feelings, thoughts that are entertained in a minds mind any less relevant than a woman’s?

Certainly, she should have been aware that such communication might spark issues with his wife and he the same.

You write: “A business that hires employees is NOT the same thing as a customer who may or may not go to a restaurant on whatever whim they feel like. An incorporated business has legal requirements when it hires employees.” I’m pretty confident that Murphy’s point is not that there are no *legal* requirements regarding whom employers hire or fire. Indeed, it would be tremendously ignorant of him to think so. On the contrary, his point is that employers have a *right* to hire or fire whomever they please, because they own the money that funds their employees’ paychecks.

Next: “Your next example of hiring choices for actors is off-topic and bizarre, as are most of the other things you ramble about…. But this is a matter of firing an e[s]tablished employee who has done nothing wrong. That’s a very different question.” Murphy explicitly acknowledges that the other examples he cites are ones that people would consider more straightforward from a moral perspective. His purpose is to show that all of these cases rest on the same question: Should I be allowed to hire or fire whomever I please?

As for the matter of “family values,” it is worth noting that this article at no point refers to such values or implies that this woman’s being fired is somehow a victory for civilization. There is a sharp distinction whether or not something should be legal and whether or not something “should be right,” as you say. Murphy is only making the argument that the dentist’s actions should be legal. Otherwise, by the logic of your point, opponents of the Drug War must therefore think that drugs are good; opponents of the Iraq War must therefore think that Saddam Hussein was good; and proponents of free speech must therefore think that KKK marches and Nazi Party rallies are good. Legal prohibition and moral censure are not remotely the same thing.

Finally, you claim that “And to say that the free market will sort it out makes very little sense. There could possibly be a boycott of this dentist but I don’t see that as very practical. ” You are quite right to say that a boycott of the business is unlikely to be effective–although this would likely be because the community does not feel especially strongly about the decision, the way they would if a restaurant decided it would refuse to serve blacks. (Now that would conjure up quite a public outrage indeed, discrimination laws or no.) However, this does not counter Murphy’s other point: that decisions like this dentist’s are *unprofitable*. By firing a good, established, fully trained employee, the dentist is reducing his profit margin and increasing the likelihood that he will go out of business.

It’s also worth keeping Murphy’s closing assertion in mind: “The forces of market competition will give the producers the right incentives to make truly business-oriented decisions. These incentives won’t ensure perfection, to be sure, but they are much better calibrated and swift than relying on government courts.” In no sense is he arguing that every case of perceived injustice will be perfectly or instantly righted by a more free market system. Rather, the case is merely a question of alternatives: the courts (enforcing the Civil Rights Act, etc.) vs. unrestrained property rights and freedom of association.